Electoral Finance Bill—Human Rights Commission

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the Minister does not have to answer both parts of a question, but that question was on notice. It is an important issue and I would have thought that when a Minister is asked which part of the analysis is wrong, the Minister would be expected to address that.

I think the Minister did address the question. Normally members want a definite, clear answer, and I think that was given to that question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry; I did not express my point well. Yes, the Minister gave a clear answer to the first part of the question, which was no, he did not accept the criticisms by the Human Rights Commission; but the second arm to the question asked, if not, which part of the analysis does the Minister not agree with?

Does the Minister wish to add anything to his answer?

Just to make the rather obvious remark that there has never been an electoral bill put to an electoral select committee that has not been changed before it passes into law. The whole process of having select committee hearings is in order to make a good bill better.

Now that the Minister is running the show, will she be recommending any changes to the bill, in light of the Human Rights Commission’s trenchant criticisms, when the bill returns to the House from the select committee next week, especially now that she has been briefed on the lack of any significant changes made at the select committee; if not, why not?

R Doug Woolerton Link to this

The member will be aware that justice officials are advisers to the committee on this bill, as they have been for all such bills; that the submissions have been heard; that members have been considering the submissions; and that because no such bill has ever gone into a select committee and not been changed, it is a fair bet that this one will be, as well.

Does the Minister agree with New Zealand First’s view of the Electoral Finance Bill, which is that free speech is being protected, not endangered, and that huge, expensive campaigns by rich third parties do nothing to enhance democracy?

I most certainly do. New Zealand is not for sale to large purchasers of election messaging.

Supplementary question, Madam Speaker—

Supplementary question, Madam Speaker—

Supplementary question, Rodney Hide—[ Interruption] I have ruled on this many times.

Winston, sometimes they go for charm and brains over seniority.

Just ask the question, Mr Hide.

I thank you for your judgment, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister realise that the bill will fail in its primary purpose of stopping the National Party from putting up its billboards early in the new year because the National Party has already bought and paid for them, or will the Government now consider restricting freedom of speech retrospectively?

The minutiae of the Electoral Act are well known to the member and I rather suspect he needs to think through that issue twice.

Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will make sure I look less like Rodney next time. Is the Minister aware that the Human Rights Commission has come back with a revised view of the bill that is far less critical, and which praises the committee members and their attention to the submitters’ concerns—

How would he know?

He would know that because if he is brought abreast of the issues he would know it on a daily basis. Madam Speaker, can I just repeat that, because—

No. Is this a matter that is before the committee?

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

The question is about the Human Rights Commission’s view, for goodness’ sake.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem the Minister is in is that Mr Hide previously referred to the fact that no significant changes had been made in the select committee. Everybody in this House is aware that significant changes are being made, and, indeed, the Human Rights Commission is supporting those changes.

Yes, but the bill has not been reported back. This is a matter that is still before the committee. I apologise to the House; I should have picked up on Mr Hide’s question. The member may ask a supplementary question, but must make sure that it is within the Standing Orders.

English Hon Bill English Link to this

Has the Minister received any reports, official or otherwise, or rumours or inferences that maybe the Human Rights Commission now has a different view—but then again one cannot be taking swimming lessons and sartorial lessons and spending one’s time on Dancing with the Stars, rather than attending the committee, to know that?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The rules around privilege of activities in select committees have been strictly kept to in this House for a long, long time. If you allow questions of that nature, asking a member whether he or she has heard any reports on something, that will certainly break down the intent of the Standing Order. That question should be ruled out of order.

I agree with the member. We cannot trifle with this matter. The matter is before the select committee. When it returns to the House is the appropriate time to discuss it.

I seek leave to rephrase the question, if that is the difficulty. Why are we all so sensitive about this? I seek to rephrase the question by asking the Minister—

Please be seated, and we will get this cleared. I agree. The question was ruled out, but the member is entitled to ask another supplementary question.

Can I ask the Minister as to whether he will find it possible to accept, if there is a Human Rights Commission submission on the amendment at the committee, that there might be a revised view when he knows about it; and will that be part and parcel of the bill’s passage through the House?

It is an opinion, but it is not on what is before the committee.